Do you have the statistical data for NC? Could you link to the legal precedent? Does this pass the absurdity test? If opting not to do business in a certain state is statistical discrimination, is nearly every business in the nation violating anti-discrimination laws?

I do not, it's not my profession to track statistics.  I'm repeating an idea that is brewing out there.

Of course there's no problem with every business not having a presence in NC.  But if a company changes and explicitly states that it is because of a policy change, that is a different situation.  See my San Fran example above.

Could a legal house of prostitution currently hang a "WHITES ONLY" sign out front? Under current law, I think not. It gets sticky (yuck) when asking if an individual prostitute should have the freedom to pick and choose customers on the basis of race, creed, color or sexual orientation.

These things get complicated when trying to balance the rights of each party against the rights of the other.

Could an individual baker pick and choose customers on the basis of X?  We've been told no, even when that X violates the baker's personal beliefs and preferences.

BTW, you left out religion.  There have been about 5-8 other protected classes added by other legislation over the years.

Good grief! You just can't let the prostitutes and sex go, can you? It's a lame comparison but hey, you want an answer, so I'll give you my opinion. The legal sex workers in Nevada IMO, should very much be prepared to have same sex encounters. They are sex workers! If they entered that profession for fun and recreation, they are sadly uninformed. Of course the millions of illegal prostitutes operating in this country are outside of the law and so are free to accept, or deny any job.

More specifically, the establishments that hire the sex workers in Nevada should ensure that they have same sex alternatives for anyone that walks in the door. If a particular sex worker is not inclined to perform the duties required, the they should then only be assigned hetero jobs, or let go/not hired. It's a business and should be run as such.

No, I'm not letting it go because no one has admitted where the gay mafia logic takes us

So your position on this is that straight people should be required to have gay sex in the name of equality.

That's the position you want to stand on?

I heard an interesting idea advanced yesterday - the question was raised as to whether or not boycotts of a particular state (NC) represent a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Briefly stated, the act says that actions which discriminate or systemically disadvantage a group are illegal.

It's been determined that even if there is no specific action, a statistical violation suffices. For example, if drug sentencing laws punish crack cocaine 10 times more harshly than powder cocaine and crack is almost exclusively used by the black community then the drug sentencing law is in violation of the Civil Right Act.

If a company refuses to hire people from a state, is that a violation of the CRA? Does that disadvantage people of the ethnic background of "North Carolina"?

If a company decides not to do business in a state, does that systemically disadvantage a protected group? Does it statistically disadvantage a certain group of religious people if that group of people are more densely represented in the state?

If a person or organization cancels a meeting or concert, has discrimination occurred?

Keep in mind the statistical method of  disadvantaging a protected group.  You don't have to even intend to do it, it can be accidental.  But once discovered, you have to correct it.

Do you want to soften the CRA in order to excuse boycotts?

And is this the right way to make law?

Of course. Don't like the plain truth so ignore it and make a sarcastic comment to avoid taking on the crux of the matter.
All citizens are entitled to their FAIR SHARE of the Bill of Rights. The idea that this group of lesbians, or that group of cross dressing perverts want to feel special has no legitimate place in the United States constitution.

As usual, your post makes little sense based on what I posted. I think it's even more imperative that you go to Nevada. I think it might really help.

Actually, it made total sense to me.  You made a sarcastic comment to avoid taking on the crux of the matter. 

Let me answer my own question since you don't want to.  By the logic of the LGBT* community, the prostitute should be forced to serve the lesbian.  By their logic, in order to be fair, straight people should be forced to have gay sex.  That is where their logic leads and probably to equally ridiculous positions involving Satanist vs Christians.

The Bill of Rights is about the protection of rights, not the granting of them.  That makes no sense unless you know that the founders understood rights to exist prior to the implementation of government and recognized that without restraint, government will infringe the rights of their citizens.  So they made an agreement that our government would never infringe on rights. 

That the LGBT* community wants to feel special is great for them, but they have no place forcing others to agree with them.  Rights are about freedom, force and compulsion are forms of slavery.  If you support compelling the prostitute to perform lesbian sex for the benefit of "equality" then you have not achieved equality, you have achieved slavery of the prostitute and YOU are the destroyer of rights.  It will eventually come back to bite you.

I trust that in demonstrating where the logic leads, you cannot agree with it.

FWIW, I really have no interest in exploring Nevada that way. 

And this is the government some people want to turn our health care system over to? 

Perhaps only the people who want to crash the healthcare system so they can rebuild it from scratch?

Let's say someone walks into a graphics and sign shop run by a couple of lesbians and says, "I want a dozen banners that say Lesbians will burn in hell"  Can the shop refuse to do those?

If you want the best example, then a lesbian walks into a brothel in Nevada and demands lesbian sex from a straight prostitute.  Good or No Good?

Two points:

• This is not happening.
• They would not be forced, even if it was happening.

Is your position that we return to allowing discrimination by businesses that hold out to the public?

You say "would not be forced to"...but how can you claim that?  If a baker can be forced to provide objectionable service against her personal preferences, why is a prostitute different?

My position is that individuals cannot be forced into providing service they do not want to provide.  You cannot compel them, all you can do it destroy their lives if they don't play your game. 

We already know that you cannot compel people.  Could you be compelled to attend church services every day?  Maybe twice a day?  Do you want your government deciding what people must do and what they must not do? 

You don't make sense and you don't even know it.

Ok. So repeal CRA1964. What do we do about state laws? Any fear that this will encourage pockets of racially pure communities wherein no others can live, work, or play?

I have no fear of it.